Private

They are all good. We've never had a Ti weld failure. Not at Q, Sig, or AAC. I'm the only person to win mil contracts for welded Ti silencers, and deliver thousand over the past decade.

The best way to perform the Ti welds is in a vacuum. For our use, we haven't been able to detect a meaningful difference between the welding. I'm confident that we have tested independently and in conjunction with the military.

Hi, Sincerely

It sounds like some of you that are questioning the welds need to read up on the suppressor testing and results during the PSR Phase II testing in 2010. NONE of the AACs had failure even though pretty much every other manufacture supplied suppressor failed the drop test while attached to rifle.

Thumbnail-les

It sounds like some of you that are questioning the welds need to read up on the suppressor testing and results during the PSR Phase II testing in 2010. NONE of the AACs had failure even though pretty much every other manufacture supplied suppressor failed the drop test while attached to rifle.

Private

This is one of the things that I think puts TBAC above any other. Ray puts out videos showing why their cans perform better in the real world, with no BS. I haven't seen any verifiable claims on how the Q cans are better, just claims that they are better.

I wouldn't mind giving Q a shot when I order my next round of cans soon, but I want to know why they are better first. Are they quieter? Lighter? Shorter? Less blowback on my gas guns? Why should I pick Q over another 4-5 TBAC cans that I already know work extremely well? Real world results are what I want to see, not snarky Instagram posts.

Private

This is one of the things that I think puts TBAC above any other. Ray puts out videos showing why their cans perform better in the real world, with no BS. I haven't seen any verifiable claims on how the Q cans are better, just claims that they are better.

I wouldn't mind giving Q a shot when I order my next round of cans soon, but I want to know why they are better first. Are they quieter? Lighter? Shorter? Less blowback on my gas guns? Why should I pick Q over another 4-5 TBAC cans that I already know work extremely well? Real world results are what I want to see, not snarky Instagram posts.

Private

It sounds like some of you that are questioning the welds need to read up on the suppressor testing and results during the PSR Phase II testing in 2010. NONE of the AACs had failure even though pretty much every other manufacture supplied suppressor failed the drop test while attached to rifle.

It sounds like you're confused on the construction differences of the silencers in question. The Full Nelson for example has 16 separate parts, combined with 15 full circumferential welds created in rapid succession.

The PSR contract you bring up was with an AAC silencer that had 2 separate parts because it was a monocore. One core and one tube. It may as well be considered one piece. Those two parts are combined with 2 full circumferential welds at opposite ends of the silencer and, depending on the exact model, possibly with small plug welds in between. With the silencer acting as a heat sink and the minimal purge gas from the tiny cup being used to weld the silencer, the welds were already silvery and colorless by default. You can google "aac titan welded" and see a picture of it yourself.

So you wonder why it didn't fail the drop test like most of the others, the reason is because it's pretty much one piece, and because the welds were properly done on that particular series of silencer.

Sergeant

I am always highly appreciative of the opportunity to interact with industry partners on this forum, and I appreciate that Kevin takes the time to come here and interact with the proletariat. But like Nate and Smoky, I am looking for the so what amidst all the rhetoric. EDM makes your cans straighter you say? So what? Shims are merely a convenience offered to the end user, not a requirement. What am I supposed to do with my crooked TBAC cans that shoot quarter minute groups?

Sergeant

I am always highly appreciative of the opportunity to interact with industry partners on this forum, and I appreciate that Kevin takes the time to come here and interact with the proletariat. But like Nate and Smoky, I am looking for the so what amidst all the rhetoric. EDM makes your cans straighter you say? So what? Shims are merely a convenience offered to the end user, not a requirement. What am I supposed to do with my crooked TBAC cans that shoot quarter minute groups?

So, you’re saying that you would not prefer to have a straighter bore as how TBACs are made works well enough for you. Other than that, you’re not saying anything at all except that you like your TBAC cans.

Sergeant

No. Assuming Kevin's runout claim is true (I don't own the tools or have the desire to measure interior runout dimensions with ten thou precision), I am asking the question "why does it matter?" Of course I want a straight can. To ask my question another way, "how straight is straight enough, and at what point are the returns diminishing?" As seen in a previous TBACRAY post, TBAC tracks runout to the ten thou, so we are talking about tiny, tiny differences here. Am I missing something?

Yes, I do like my TBAC cans, but I am not blind to innovation. My questions stem from the desire to separate marketing speak from the metrics that actually matter to me, like noise reduction and suppressed precision.

Lurking since 2005

I'm about to buy a Trash Panda this weekend as my first suppressor. It's going to spend time on a couple AR pistols in 300blk and 5.56.

Kevin, how does one go about cleaning the panda? Any specific do's and dont's when cleaning Titanium?

I ran across one incident were a Panda got stuck and the guy ended up backing the cherry bomb off with the suppressor still attached. Ive only heard one case of it out of all the reviews and personal acolades so I'm chalking it up to something he did wrong. But it did make me wonder about the recommended way of attaching the cherry bomb.

Private

It sounds like you're confused on the construction differences of the silencers in question. The Full Nelson for example has 16 separate parts, combined with 15 full circumferential welds created in rapid succession.

The PSR contract you bring up was with an AAC silencer that had 2 separate parts because it was a monocore. One core and one tube. It may as well be considered one piece. Those two parts are combined with 2 full circumferential welds at opposite ends of the silencer and, depending on the exact model, possibly with small plug welds in between. With the silencer acting as a heat sink and the minimal purge gas from the tiny cup being used to weld the silencer, the welds were already silvery and colorless by default. You can google "aac titan welded" and see a picture of it yourself.

So you wonder why it didn't fail the drop test like most of the others, the reason is because it's pretty much one piece, and because the welds were properly done on that particular series of silencer.

That's completely false. I know because I was there, and actually in charge, with knowledge of what was delivered (not just read about it Google). We tested all of the welding theories. We hired consultants. Tested different configurations with SOCOM. You have to do actual physical testing to know if your welds are good. We did and do that. I'm comfortable with our products, through actual experience, testing, selling thousands of welded Ti silencers, and winning numerous .mil contracts (both mono core and individual baffle configurations).

Private

I am always highly appreciative of the opportunity to interact with industry partners on this forum, and I appreciate that Kevin takes the time to come here and interact with the proletariat. But like Nate and Smoky, I am looking for the so what amidst all the rhetoric. EDM makes your cans straighter you say? So what? Shims are merely a convenience offered to the end user, not a requirement. What am I supposed to do with my crooked TBAC cans that shoot quarter minute groups?

Order and install 10, or 100, or 1,000. Catalog the results, compare to one that's EDM'ed and uses taper mounts.
I believe TBAC makes good products, and I'm happy that your's works for you. But, the product could be better. But, again, if good enough is good enough...

Private

No. Assuming Kevin's runout claim is true (I don't own the tools or have the desire to measure interior runout dimensions with ten thou precision), I am asking the question "why does it matter?" Of course I want a straight can. To ask my question another way, "how straight is straight enough, and at what point are the returns diminishing?" As seen in a previous TBACRAY post, TBAC tracks runout to the ten thou, so we are talking about tiny, tiny differences here. Am I missing something?

Yes, I do like my TBAC cans, but I am not blind to innovation. My questions stem from the desire to separate marketing speak from the metrics that actually matter to me, like noise reduction and suppressed precision.

I have serious doubts about claims I've seen posted. Straightness matters for alignment, accuracy, zero-shift, etc. If the silencer doesn't use a taper mount for secure, proper alignment, straightness is even more critical. If tapers aren't best for alignment, why would machine tools go to the trouble and expense in using them?

Basement Dweller

I have serious doubts about claims I've seen posted. Straightness matters for alignment, accuracy, zero-shift, etc. If the silencer doesn't use a taper mount for secure, proper alignment, straightness is even more critical. If tapers aren't best for alignment, why would machine tools go to the trouble and expense in using them?

Hi, Sincerely

It sounds like you're confused on the construction differences of the silencers in question. The Full Nelson for example has 16 separate parts, combined with 15 full circumferential welds created in rapid succession.

The PSR contract you bring up was with an AAC silencer that had 2 separate parts because it was a monocore. One core and one tube. It may as well be considered one piece. Those two parts are combined with 2 full circumferential welds at opposite ends of the silencer and, depending on the exact model, possibly with small plug welds in between. With the silencer acting as a heat sink and the minimal purge gas from the tiny cup being used to weld the silencer, the welds were already silvery and colorless by default. You can google "aac titan welded" and see a picture of it yourself.

So you wonder why it didn't fail the drop test like most of the others, the reason is because it's pretty much one piece, and because the welds were properly done on that particular series of silencer.

Being present doesn't negate factual information about a silencers construction. If it was indeed a TiTan silencer, then that is how they were constructed, that is how they were welded and why the welds were colorless, and that's it why they passed the drop test with better results than other silencers. No one's disagreeing with you, just explaining to you that construction method and weld pattern/location made for good welds on that particular silencer, for which its method can't be universally applied, like when you have rapid succession welds 3/8" apart right next to each other.

That's completely false. I know because I was there, and actually in charge, with knowledge of what was delivered (not just read about it Google). We tested all of the welding theories. We hired consultants. Tested different configurations with SOCOM. You have to do actual physical testing to know if your welds are good. We did and do that.a I'm comfortable with our products, through actual experience, testing, selling thousands of welded Ti silencers, and winning numerous .mil contracts (both mono core and individual baffle configurations).

Are you saying that TiTans, which are two part silencers, were not submitted to PSR trials, or that the welds were not done properly? I said the welds were properly done, and for the reasons I stated above that is why they were properly done. I'm sure your consultants told you the welds were good on that silencer, because they were. I don't see anyone saying that TiTan welds were incorrect, only people that are confusing the different types of construction and welding patterns of silencers and trying to universally apply the principles which isn't how it works.

You two are both welcome to point out where I'm incorrect, and I'll retract my statement if proven false. If TiTans are what was submitted, the welds were properly done for the reasons I stated. If it was a TiTan that passed the PSR drop test, then it passed for the reasons I stated. The TiTan has proper welds, and it was strong because it's one solid piece of metal with a tube around it, and I'm assuming it was the QD model so it had strong stube ACME threads in the mount. So unless it wasn't a TiTan that was submitted for PSR with welds in those locations, then go ahead and tell everyone what was submitted at AAC for the PSR, because that's all I'm talking about. Not your new stuff. I have no doubt you physically test your welds.

Order and install 10, or 100, or 1,000. Catalog the results, compare to one that's EDM'ed and uses taper mounts.
I believe TBAC makes good products, and I'm happy that your's works for you. But, the product could be better. But, again, if good enough is good enough...

We both know that in a silencer the first chamber contains the highest amount of pressure and that every subsequent baffle chamber has a lower pressure it has to deal with. Your first welds on your silencer at the blast baffle all seem to be colorless, as would be expected with minimal purge gas through a tiny cup and the silencer acting as a heat sink. Last I heard from your welder, your silencers are welded blast chamber to front cap in order, so by not using argon purge properly the weld quality degrades the further towards the front cap it goes. But with that degradation in weld quality over the length of the silencer, each subsequent chamber also has to contain less pressure as a result of pressure drops. So the amount of pressure a baffle chamber has to deal with directly correlates with the quality of the weld in your silencers case. That's just a happy coincidence apparently and results in very speedy production, especially helpful when the silencer is only constructed of four different parts. But you tested your welds and you said you were comfortable with them. Telling TBAC their product could be better is interesting when you could make all of your welds properly from the blast baffle to the front cap and make your product better. I believe Q makes good products, and I'm happy that yours works for you. But, again, if good enough is good enough...

While we're on that, there's not a whole lot of point in trashing shims when you can't easily shim a 25 deg taper to time a horizontal brake. You used a radial brake design most likely because it doesn't need to be timed against a taper to work. Maybe you either didn't want to deal with the trouble of making a normal horizontal muzzle brake that'd have to be timed and/or work around SIGs patent that Ethan made for a two part time-able muzzle device. A radial brake will kick up more dust than a normal horizontal brake I'd imagine and be less effective compared to a horizontal brake depending on the model.

To tell the whole story, shims are an optional end user convenience, not a requirement. Anyone spinning up a new barrel can have the brake timed when the muzzle threads are cut. Most smiths won't even charge you extra.

Sergeant

To tell the whole story, shims are an optional end user convenience, not a requirement. Anyone spinning up a new barrel can have the brake timed when the muzzle threads are cut. Most smiths won't even charge you extra.

Beat me to it, was going to say the same thing. All my barrels have been threaded specifically for the can whether it was for a DT or now the Ultra 9CB. The brake was timed and no shims were even considered. What fool smith uses shims on a new barrel? Existing threads I get, not new. I used a 300TM for a few years and never had any more shift than perfectly straight up with the can off and perfectly straight down to its original zero with it on, 0.5 mil each way. The barrel was threaded specifically for the cans threads not manufactures specs, making the tolerances between the two very very little. The barrel muzzle was .920 so it had a lot to butt up against once it was tightened on. The same now applies for my CB brake, just over 1 thread and its tight but still smooth with no wobble at all. Timed correct I never have any issues or accuracy degradation.

Private

To tell the whole story, shims are an optional end user convenience, not a requirement. Anyone spinning up a new barrel can have the brake timed when the muzzle threads are cut. Most smiths won't even charge you extra.

Private

Beat me to it, was going to say the same thing. All my barrels have been threaded specifically for the can whether it was for a DT or now the Ultra 9CB. The brake was timed and no shims were even considered. What fool smith uses shims on a new barrel? Existing threads I get, not new. I used a 300TM for a few years and never had any more shift than perfectly straight up with the can off and perfectly straight down to its original zero with it on, 0.5 mil each way. The barrel was threaded specifically for the cans threads not manufactures specs, making the tolerances between the two very very little. The barrel muzzle was .920 so it had a lot to butt up against once it was tightened on. The same now applies for my CB brake, just over 1 thread and its tight but still smooth with no wobble at all. Timed correct I never have any issues or accuracy degradation.

Heavier barrels are certainly better for zero-shift, and for the ability to torque 90 degree muzzle devices sufficiently so that they are more likely to stay tight during use. The reality is that anything added to a muzzle will result in some amount of shift. Sometimes you get lucky and it's virtually non-existent. Our goal is minimize shift consistently and for volume and production without resorting to custom work.

Private

Is the trash panda full auto rated? Capitol armory says no. I couldn’t find specifically stated yes or no on the website. After reading that the trash panda was all titanium, I am really curious how it handles the extreme heat of sustained high rates of fire. If it isn’t, the trash panda vs omega comparison is a little skewed. One things for sure, after seeing this thread and some of the Instagram posts out there, q will never get a dime of my money. Humility goes a long way for me.

Private

He owns the company and about four seconds of searching would have told you that. I don’t own any Q cans, but as an observer and once-was firearms journalist, I feel safe in saying that Kevin brought the industry out of the 80’s when he formed AAC, built some world class suppressors (rifle that killed Bin Laden was wearing one of his AAC M4-2000 cans), and started calling out other manufacturers for false claims. All of a sudden, the guys claiming “mil spec tested,” “SOCOM approved,” “best in class flash suppression,” “fully welded Inconel core”; got called the fuck out on their bullshit with open and documented testing. So, if you like not having a painted tube full of washers, aircraft engine parts, that is advertised with literal and provable lies, thank Kevin. If you like fully welded cores that truly stand up to SOCOM testing, thank Kevin. If you can’t look past a man’s personality to the quality of the inanimate objects that he produces, find a more touchy feely suppressor company CEO to base your buying decisions upon. Myself, I want a Q Erector and Half Nelson pretty bad. Also, TBAC cans are made in the best state and Zack is a pretty cool, smart dude.

Private

It’s unfortunate that the industry allows someone like him to talk false BS about others or call them out for doing the same shit he is doing. #bootleg

Give him credit where it’s due he brought Suppressors to the civilian market, that’s it. He didn’t invent them! Truly, SilencerCo brought it even further to the masses then AAC did. SilencerCo had 68% of the US Suppressor market during the height of the Suppressor gold rush at one point!

I don’t see the Founder of SilencerCo Beating his chest saying he is the greatest and everyone else just copies others and are beneath me!

Private

It’s unfortunate that the industry allows someone like him to talk false BS about others or call them out for doing the same shit he is doing. #bootleg

Give him credit where it’s due he brought Suppressors to the civilian market, that’s it. He didn’t invent them! Truly, SilencerCo brought it even further to the masses then AAC did. SilencerCo had 68% of the US Suppressor market during the height of the Suppressor gold rush at one point!

I don’t see the Founder of SilencerCo Beating his chest saying he is the greatest and everyone else just copies others and are beneath me!

I did design and invented most everything at AAC. I had drafters, like Mike Smith or Mongo (Sam Fischer), do CAD drawing for machining. For instance, Robert Silvers brought slanted baffle with square spacers to AAC. I was heavy and nearly impossible to produce. I designed them into mono cores and won the .mil contracts with my design based on Robert's idea. Robert was independently wealthy. He asked for credit instead for pay. We marketed him and gave him credit for most everything. He wasn't involved in the Honey Badger at all. He never even saw in person until we delivered the second generation guns. Everyone actually involved back them knows this.

Your lil buddy posted a lot of things. Most of it is extremely skewed or just false. For instance, the Gemtech Tundra came to the market about 5 years after our ASAP booster system. Prior to that, Gemtech used the LID, a version of the SWR LCD booster system. It sucked.

If you don't like our products, don't buy them. But, like me or not, our products are innovative and lead the industry...just like we did at AAC and SIG.

BTW, when I was fired from AAC, we were 3-5x bigger than Silencerco who was second. We were over 50% of commercial silencers sold.

This - the Q (trash panda) is my semi can, the Ultra is my bolt can. Sico - great CS, but they products dont compare sorry. Their brakes , when put on one of their brakes, get random concentrically -- recently went through 5 ASR brakes to get one where the can was concerntric (using a geissele bore concentricity rod) as it was way off.

Private

It sounds like some of you that are questioning the welds need to read up on the suppressor testing and results during the PSR Phase II testing in 2010. NONE of the AACs had failure even though pretty much every other manufacture supplied suppressor failed the drop test while attached to rifle.

Honestly, I didn't even know he made silencers. I don't have one and can't speak to it or his claims. I can, however, tell you what my views are, what we've done, and what our testing shows.

We made our tubeless rifle silencers 1.75" in diameter. This increases internal volume by 50% over SF silencers of the same length. This added volume gives you not only better sound performance, but also far less back pressure. We also run a very generous bore, which also helps with back pressure, but costs a little sound.

We've seen with OSS silencers, that you might have less back pressure and it's quieter at the shooter's ear, but very loud mil-std or in front of the gun. The same back pressure was accomplished with a SIG silencer by opening the bore from .385" to .500", also resulting in the same sound performance in all locations as the OSS.

This is just what I've witnessed. Ethan and I have worked a lot with groups over the years running super fast bolt velocity guns, like the HK 416 and 417. A good silencer tends to be a balance of many things. First, you need a clear objective of what's desired. For Q silencers for the commercial market, we balance it on our experiences.